Premium
SU‐F‐T‐428: An Optimization‐Based Commissioning Tool for Finite Size Pencil Beam Dose Calculations
Author(s) -
Li Y,
Tian Z,
Song T,
Jia X,
Gu X,
Jiang S
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4956613
Subject(s) - dosimetry , mathematics , kernel (algebra) , dose profile , superposition principle , scaling , beam (structure) , optics , algorithm , physics , nuclear medicine , mathematical analysis , geometry , medicine , combinatorics
Purpose: Finite size pencil beam (FSPB) algorithms are commonly used to pre‐calculate the beamlet dose distribution for IMRT treatment planning. FSPB commissioning, which usually requires fine tuning of the FSPB kernel parameters, is crucial to the dose calculation accuracy and hence the plan quality. Yet due to the large number of beamlets, FSPB commissioning could be very tedious. This abstract reports an optimization‐based FSPB commissioning tool we have developed in MatLab to facilitate the commissioning. Methods: A FSPB dose kernel generally contains two types of parameters: the profile parameters determining the dose kernel shape, and a 2D scaling factors accounting for the longitudinal and off‐axis corrections. The former were fitted using the penumbra of a reference broad beam's dose profile with Levenberg‐Marquardt algorithm. Since the dose distribution of a broad beam is simply a linear superposition of the dose kernel of each beamlet calculated with the fitted profile parameters and scaled using the scaling factors, these factors could be determined by solving an optimization problem which minimizes the discrepancies between the calculated dose of broad beams and the reference dose. Results: We have commissioned a FSPB algorithm for three linac photon beams (6MV, 15MV and 6MVFFF). Dose of four field sizes (6*6cm2, 10*10cm2, 15*15cm2 and 20*20cm2) were calculated and compared with the reference dose exported from Eclipse TPS system. For depth dose curves, the differences are less than 1% of maximum dose after maximum dose depth for most cases. For lateral dose profiles, the differences are less than 2% of central dose at inner‐beam regions. The differences of the output factors are within 1% for all the three beams. Conclusion: We have developed an optimization‐based commissioning tool for FSPB algorithms to facilitate the commissioning, providing sufficient accuracy of beamlet dose calculation for IMRT optimization.